On August 31, 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced that it had ordered more than 110 commercial driver training schools to stop training immediately. In the same announcement, DOT said that drivers certified by those schools had been linked to 239 fatalities, launched a nationwide audit of third-party CDL skills testers, and unveiled a Department of Justice task force focused on trucking fraud.¹

For most of the transportation industry, CDL training is not front of mind because state licensing agencies have served as the official measure of competence. While that remains true, the focus of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) on the CDL issuing process and, specifically, CDL training providers changes the risk calculus for those entities that hire their graduates — motor carriers, public transit agencies, and shippers’ private fleets — and for every broker and shipper that contracts for transportation services.

Hanson Bridgett’s July 23 legal alert addressed what the first phase of this enforcement meant for motor carriers and brokers. This alert follows a recent Hanson Bridgett webinar on October 13 and picks up where the previous legal alert one left off. It explains the regulatory structure under which CDL training providers operate, how FMCSA’s enforcement has escalated since July, including the August 31 emergency removals, and what each part of the transportation network should do next.

Executive Summary

• Training providers operate on a self-certification system that FMCSA is now policing aggressively. Since 2022, the Training Provider Registry required no proof of state licensure, curriculum, or facilities. FMCSA is now enforcing oversight and has removed thousands of providers since late 2025.
• FMCSA uses two very different tools when exercising CDL training provider oversight. A Notice of Proposed Removal gives the provider 30 days to respond and a path to cure allowing training to continue. An emergency removal takes effect immediately, ends all training, and requires administrative review or reinstatement.
• The August 31 emergency removals rest on post-licensing enforcement data. FMCSA treated roadside English-language-proficiency failures by a school’s graduates, sometimes years after training, as proof of a deficient program and willful disregard of the rules.
• Training providers should audit their Registry listings, curricula, and records now. Many NOPRs rest on curable paperwork gaps. An emergency removal calls for counsel immediately.
• Motor carriers, public transit agencies, and private fleets face little regulatory exposure, because a valid CDL remains valid when the school that trained the driver is removed. But their civil exposure could be greater. Individualized, documented assessment of affected drivers is the way to mitigate risk. Arbitrary categorical bans create different risks.
• Brokers and shippers should not start auditing carriers’ driver training. They should rely on carrier representations and indemnity in their transportation contracts to protect against liability.

The Training Provider Registry

Before detailing the most recent enforcement initiative and the steps that companies should take, it is important to understand how CDL training programs are established and overseen by the FMCSA.

In 2012, Congress mandated minimum entry-level training requirements and a federal registry of qualified training providers.² FMCSA developed the resulting Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) rule through a negotiated rulemaking that included carriers, safety advocates, and training providers, and issued it in December 2016.³ After repeated delays, it took effect on February 7, 2022.⁴ Since then, a first-time applicant for a Class A or Class B CDL, or for a passenger, school bus, or hazardous materials endorsement, must complete ELDT from a provider listed on FMCSA’s Training Provider Registry (TPR) before taking the state skills or knowledge test.⁵ States may impose additional requirements, but the federal curriculum sets the educational and training minimum throughout the country.

What the curriculum requires. ELDT has two components. Theory instruction is knowledge training — lecture, online, or simulator — delivered by a qualified theory instructor. Behind-the-wheel (BTW) instruction requires the trainee to have actual control of the vehicle, first on a range closed to other traffic and then on public roads.⁶ The curricula are set out unit by unit in five appendices, one for each license class and endorsement.⁷ Neither component carries a minimum number of hours. Instead, the trainee must score at least 80 percent on a written theory assessment covering every unit, and a BTW instructor must evaluate and document the trainee’s proficiency in each required skill.⁸ Theory and BTW may come from different providers, but range and public-road training must come from the same provider.⁹

A registry built on self-certification. To be listed, a provider electronically submits a registration form attesting that it meets the federal requirements: a compliant curriculum, compliant facilities and vehicles, qualified instructors, and any license its state requires.¹⁰ FMCSA then issues a TPR number for each location. Nothing in the process today requires the provider to submit its state license, its curriculum, or its course outline. That design let employers, municipalities, and transit agencies train their own drivers without entering the school business. It also let less well-intentioned individuals establish training programs with minimal commitment to meeting the ELDT requirements.

Continuing obligations. Listing is not a one-time event. To stay on the TPR, a provider must continue to meet every requirement of Subpart G, update its registration every two years, report changes to key information — including the types of training it offers — within 30 days, and produce its records within 48 hours of an FMCSA request.¹¹ It must also complete paperwork and retain paperwork for every trainee. That includes collecting and keeping each BTW applicant’s certification that they will comply with DOT’s drug testing, licensing, medical, and driver qualification rules, verifying the applicant’s learner’s permit, and uploading a training certificate to the TPR by midnight of the second business day after the trainee finishes.¹² Those records must be kept for three years.¹³

Removal, and what it means for graduates. FMCSA may remove a provider that fails to meet or maintain any of these qualifications. Among the factors it may consider are an audit’s finding of “material deficiencies” and its graduates’ pass rates on state CDL skills tests.¹⁴ Training conducted after removal is invalid. Training completed before removal remains valid, unless FMCSA determines, on a case-by-case basis, that the provider engaged in fraud or criminal behavior in which the trainee knowingly participated.¹⁵

From Self-Certification to Zero Tolerance: FMCSA’s Enforcement Campaign

From February 2022 through mid-2025, CDL training providers on the Registry were not subject to extensive oversight. That changed after a series of fatal truck crashes in 2025, and as the DOT focused on English language proficiency and non-domiciled CDLs to advance its safety objectives.

The escalation. The first wave was administrative. By late 2025, the Registry had grown to roughly 16,000 listed providers without any systematic federal verification. In December 2025, FMCSA reviewed that list, removed nearly 3,000 providers for failing to meet federal requirements, and placed another 4,500 on notice.¹⁶ Early in 2026, it removed thousands more and sent notices of proposed removal to more than 550 schools.¹⁷ Finally, in July 2026, DOT and the Department of Homeland Security announced joint fraud investigations of 75 CDL schools, and DOT reported that nearly 10,000 schools had been removed from the Registry. That partnership marked the shift from administrative cleanup to coordinated civil and criminal investigation that Hanson Bridgett addressed in its July alert.¹⁸

Then came August 31: more than 110 emergency removals were issued.¹⁹ Training providers, and the companies that rely upon them to help bring drivers into the industry, were thrown into uncertainty.

Two tools, two very different processes. FMCSA removes providers in one of two ways, and the difference matters to everyone downstream.

The most typical path is the Notice of Proposed Removal (NOPR).²⁰ FMCSA identifies the deficiencies and the corrective action required. The provider has 30 days to respond, either by showing that FMCSA relied on erroneous information or by committing to fix the problem, and then must complete the corrective action within 60 days.²¹ The provider keeps training in the meantime, and that training is valid. It must notify its current and scheduled trainees, and FMCSA flags its listing on the TPR.

The second path is emergency removal. In cases of fraud, criminal behavior, or willful disregard of the regulations, or where public health, interest, or safety requires it, FMCSA may skip the NOPR process and remove a provider immediately.²² The provider must stop all training the day the notice is issued. Its recourse: a request for administrative review within 30 days, which must set out every factual, legal, and procedural issue in dispute, or an application for reinstatement no sooner than 30 days after removal, with proof of corrective action.²³

What drove the August 31 emergency removals. The August removals followed a different model. FMCSA did not send investigators to the schools. It analyzed enforcement data, comparing the TPR against roadside inspection data and identifying drivers who had been placed out of service for failing an English language proficiency (ELP) assessment after the school certified their training. When FMCSA found a cluster of post-certification ELP failures, it concluded that the program was materially deficient and that the provider had willfully disregarded the regulations.²⁴

That conclusion and the ensuing emergency removals raise interesting legal issues. A roadside ELP failure several years after obtaining a CDL may not reflect what the provider taught or the driver’s English language proficiency when training was certified.²⁵

Guidance for CDL Training Providers

In light of the FMCSA’s oversight and enforcement initiative, CDL training providers should take the following steps to minimize disruption to their business:

• Make sure listings match reality. Remove from the TPR any class, endorsement, or training type you do not deliver at that location today, and report changes to key information within 30 days.²⁶ Confirm that each campus or training location has its own registration.²⁷ Calendar the biennial update.²⁸
• Map the curriculum to the appendices, unit by unit. A commercial test-prep book is not an ELDT curriculum. Confirm that the theory curriculum covers every unit in the applicable appendix, including the units on English language proficiency, and keep the lesson plans.²⁹
• Document every assessment. Keep each trainee’s written theory assessment showing an overall score of at least 80 percent, and a BTW evaluation that tracks each required skill in the curriculum.³⁰
• Audit the range, the vehicles, and the instructors. A range must be closed to other traffic, free of obstructions, and have adequate sight lines; a public street does not qualify. Training vehicles must be in the same group and type the trainee will test in, and must meet federal and state safety requirements.³¹ Keep a qualification file for every instructor, including a current copy of their CDL and endorsements and proof of the required experience.³²
• Collect self-certifications. Before BTW training begins, obtain each trainee’s signed certification that they will comply with DOT’s drug and alcohol testing, licensing, medical certification, and driver qualification rules, verify and copy the trainee’s learner’s permit, and keep both.³³ This single document accounts for a large share of the NOPRs issued.
• Upload certificates on time and completely. Training certifications are due by midnight of the second business day after completion and must report the trainee’s license information, the class or endorsement and type of training, BTW clock hours, and the provider’s TPR number.³⁴ Expect FMCSA to scrutinize providers that report zero or implausibly low BTW hours.
• Designate one point of contact. A NOPR notation will bring calls from hiring carriers, state funding agencies, and licensing authorities. One person should handle all of them, with a consistent and accurate explanation.
• Answer every NOPR within 30 days. Either show that FMCSA relied on erroneous information, with documentation, or commit to corrective action and complete it within 60 days. Silence results in removal.³⁵
• Treat an emergency removal as litigation from day one. Stop training immediately, preserve every record, and retain counsel. The request for administrative review is due within 30 days and must raise every factual, legal, and procedural issue, because anything less may be treated as a request for reinstatement. Weigh with counsel whether to seek judicial review without waiting for FMCSA’s decision.

Guidance for Motor Carriers, Private Fleets, and Public Transit Agencies

The regulatory exposure is narrow. A motor carrier’s federal obligation is to confirm that each driver is qualified: that the driver holds a currently valid CDL, has been properly investigated before hire, has passed a road test or furnished an acceptable equivalent, and is reviewed annually.³⁶ Nevertheless, as Hanson Bridgett advised in its July legal alert, verification of ELDT completion helps protect against liability. Carriers should obtain the driver’s ELDT completion certificate, confirm that the provider was listed on the TPR as of the date training was completed, and keep a dated record of that check in the driver qualification file.

TPR removal does not, on its face, change a driver’s qualification. Training completed before a provider’s removal remains valid, and FMCSA’s authority to invalidate it retroactively is limited to fraud or criminal conduct in which the trainee knowingly participated.³⁷ A driver holding a valid CDL from a removed school is not, for that reason alone, unqualified.

The civil exposure may not be. Negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent entrustment claims do not require a regulatory violation. They ask what a reasonable employer would have done with what it knew or should have known.³⁸ Two features of this enforcement wave give plaintiffs a ready-made theory. First, notoriety: DOT has publicly tied drivers from the emergency-removed schools to 239 deaths.³⁹ Second, discoverability: the TPR is public and removal status is searchable. Expect plaintiffs to ask, in the event of an accident, where the driver trained.

Hiring and monitoring are separate problems. The pre-hire screening obligation and the continuing obligation to monitor current drivers call for different responses, and carriers should not collapse them. At hiring, the July verification practice answers the question, and it is inexpensive. For drivers already on payroll, the credential stands, but knowledge changes the analysis. Once a carrier knows a driver trained at an emergency-removed school, doing nothing is the worst option.

Consider the following steps:

• Verify ELDT at hiring. Follow the three-step practice from Hanson Bridgett’s July alert: obtain the completion certificate, confirm the provider’s TPR status as of the completion date, and keep a date-stamped record in the driver qualification file. Then check the provider’s current status as well.
• Distinguish the signals. A NOPR notation means the school is still listed, its training is still valid, and the underlying issue may be something as simple as a missing form. An emergency removal is a much stronger signal. Treat them differently.
• Look harder, not away. For an applicant trained at an emergency-removed school, consider and evaluate the driver’s experience, performance, and skills. Do not reject the applicant on the school’s status alone.
• Re-evaluate current drivers and document it. For drivers already employed who trained at an emergency-removed school, assess the driver’s qualifications and place the record in the driver qualification file.
• Avoid blanket exclusions. Adopt a written policy of individualized assessment and apply it consistently.

Guidance for Brokers and Shippers

Previously, the sufficiency of driver training may have been primarily, if not exclusively, a motor carrier concern. As Hanson Bridgett has explained, the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II earlier this year has opened the door to state-law negligent selection claims against brokers. Plaintiffs now have a clear path to reach upstream of the carrier, and this enforcement wave hands them a new fact to plead: the broker or shipper should have known the carrier’s drivers came out of flagged schools.⁴⁰

The natural reaction for shippers and brokers may be to impose new obligations on carrier partners’ driver hiring and supervision practices. That is the wrong move. A broker that undertakes to verify where a carrier’s drivers trained risks assuming a duty it cannot actually discharge, and a party that voluntarily undertakes to protect others can be held liable for performing that undertaking carelessly.⁴¹ A broker has no access to a carrier’s driver qualification files and no practical means of auditing them. Federal law places responsibility for driver qualification on the motor carrier, and that allocation is the foundation of the right approach.⁴² The same line protects against vicarious liability, which turns on operational control. Asking a carrier to represent its own compliance asks what the carrier already knows. Reviewing its drivers’ files begins to do the carrier’s job.

Nor can brokers and shippers simply ignore the issue. Good contracts make good partners, and here they are the primary tool for managing downstream liability. Obtaining the carrier’s commitments, backing them with enforceable remedies, and avoiding direction of the carrier’s internal processes are concrete steps a broker or shipper can take to protect against liability without intruding into the operation of a carrier partner.

Consider the following steps:

• Require carrier representations. Broker-carrier and shipper-carrier agreements should include the carrier’s representation that every driver holds a valid CDL obtained through ELDT from a provider listed on the TPR at the time of training.
• Ask about procedures, not drivers. Ask carriers to confirm they have procedures for verifying ELDT completion, document their responses, and reserve a contractual right to supporting documentation for audit or dispute purposes, as Hanson Bridgett’s July alert recommended. Do not review or approve drivers’ training records as a condition of tendering loads, and do not direct how carriers screen drivers. Confine carrier selection to the carrier-level criteria you can actually verify, such as operating authority, safety rating, and insurance.
• Revisit legacy agreements. Many existing contracts predate ELDT. Update them at renewal to address training-provider compliance expressly.

Anticipate Continued Enforcement and Evolving Liability Risks

The FMCSA’s enforcement efforts directed at noncompliant CDL training providers are just the latest in a series of initiatives adopted since the start of Secretary Duffy’s tenure. Additional enforcement efforts, focusing on other aspects of the CDL training and licensing regime, are likely in the near future.⁴³ Every stakeholder within the transportation industry — from the companies that hire CDL holders to those that contract for transportation services — should regularly reevaluate their liability exposure and contractual agreements.

---

¹ U.S. Dep’t of Transp., U.S. Transportation Secretary Duffy, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Mullin, White House Fraud Task Force, & Top U.S. Attorneys Launch Historic Interagency Effort to Crack Down on Fraud in Trucking Industry (Aug. 31, 2026), https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-duffy-us-homeland-security-secretary-mullin-white-house; see also FreightWaves, DOT Shuts Down 110 Truck Driving Schools in CDL Fraud Crackdown (Sept. 2026), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dot-shuts-down-110-truck-driving-schools-in-cdl-fraud-crackdown

² Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 32304, 126 Stat. 405, 791 (2012) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 31305(c)).

³ Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators, 81 Fed. Reg. 88,732 (Dec. 8, 2016).

⁴ 49 C.F.R. pt. 380, subpt. G; see 85 Fed. Reg. 6,088 (Feb. 4, 2020) (delaying compliance date to Feb. 7, 2022).

⁵ 49 C.F.R. § 380.700; see generally id. pt. 380, subpt. F.

⁶ Id. § 380.605 (defining theory instruction, behind-the-wheel range training, and behind-the-wheel public road training).

⁷ Id. pt. 380, apps. A–E.

⁸ Id. § 380.715(a)–(b).

⁹ Id. § 380.707(c).

¹⁰ Id. § 380.703(a)–(b).

¹¹ Id. § 380.719(a)(1)–(3), (6).

¹² Id. §§ 380.707(a), 380.717.

¹³ Id. § 380.725(b)–(c)

¹⁴ Id. § 380.721(a)(3), (5).

¹⁵ Id. §§ 380.721, 380.723(e).

¹⁶ U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Cracks Down on Illegal Providers of Commercial Driver’s License Test Training Centers (Dec. 1, 2025), https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-cracks-down-illegal-providers-commercial (reporting a review of the 16,000 providers then listed, removal of nearly 3,000, and 4,500 placed on notice).

¹⁷ U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Moves to Shut Down Hundreds of CDL Mills Violating Federal Regulations (Feb. 18, 2026), https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-moves-shut-down-hundreds-cdl-mills. 

¹⁸  U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Trump’s Departments of Transportation & Homeland Security Team Up to Crack Down on Fraud in CDL Schools (July 16, 2026),https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-departments-transportation-homeland-security-team-crack-down-fraud-cdl-schools ; U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., DHS Announces Partnership with Department of Transportation to Crack Down on Fraud in CDL Schools (July 16, 2026), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/07/16/dhs-announces-partnership-department-transportation-crack-down-fraud-cdl-schools; see Gregory R. Reed, Federal Scrutiny of CDL Training Schools: Practical Considerations for Motor Carriers and Brokers, Hanson Bridgett LLP (July 23, 2026), https://www.hansonbridgett.com/publication/260723_0900_cdl-training-schools. 

¹⁹ See supra note 1.

²⁰ 49 C.F.R. § 380.723(b).

²¹ Id. § 380.723(c)(1)–(2).

²² Id. § 380.723(e).

²³ Id. § 380.723(d), (f)(2).

²⁴ Id. §§ 380.721(a)(3), 380.723(e); FMCSA, English Language Proficiency Internal Agency Enforcement Policy, MC-SEE-2026-0002; FMCSA, Enforcement Guidance Memorandum MC-SEE-2025-0001.

²⁵ See FreightWaves, New Jersey CDL School Lawsuit Questions Evidence Behind FMCSA Shutdown (Oct. 8, 2026), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/new-jersey-cdl-school-lawsuit-questions-evidence-behind-fmcsa-shutdown.  

²⁶ 49 C.F.R. § 380.719(a)(3).

²⁷ Id. § 380.703(a)(7).

²⁸ Id. § 380.719(a)(2).

²⁹ Id. §§ 380.703(a)(1), 380.725(b)(4); id. pt. 380, apps. A–E.

³⁰ Id. §§ 380.715(a)–(b), 380.725(b)(5).

³¹ Id. §§ 380.605 (defining range), 380.709, 380.711.

³² Id. §§ 380.605, 380.713, 380.725(b)(3).

³³ Id. §§ 380.707(a), 380.725(b)(1)–(2).

³⁴ Id. § 380.717.

³⁵ Id. § 380.723(c).

³⁶ 49 C.F.R. §§ 391.11(b)(5), 391.21, 391.23, 391.25, 391.31, 391.33; see Reed, supra note 18 (recommending review of the ELDT completion certificate, TPR verification as of the completion date, and documentation in the driver qualification file).

³⁷ 49 C.F.R. §§ 380.721, 380.723(e).

³⁸ Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213; Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 317, 390.

³⁹ See supra note 1.

⁴⁰ Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 608 U.S. 219 (2026); 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), (c)(2)(A); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411; see Reed, supra note 18.

⁴¹ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A.

⁴² 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(a); see Reed, supra note 18 (proposing sample carrier representation language and distinguishing carrier representations from broker operational control).

⁴³ Noel Fletcher, FMCSA Seeks Emergency Review of Chameleon CDL Schools, Transport Topics (Oct. 16, 2026), https://www.ttnews.com/articles/fmcsa-cdl-school-review.